After the CP+ show in Yokohama closed last week, editor Barnaby Britton journeyed out to Olympus's design facility in Hachioji to speak to executives and engineers. Among the people he spoke to was Hirofumi Imano, Division Manager of Product Strategy. In a broad-ranging interview, Mr. Imano explained the company's strategies for competing in a tough market, the genesis of the OM-D line, opportunities in video, and why he thinks Canon and Nikon might not be making high-end mirrorless cameras.

Note: This interview was conducted through a translator, and edits have been made for clarity and structure.

Can you describe to me the current state of the consumer digital imaging market, as you see it?

Well, obviously shipments from manufacturers are down, compact cameras especially but also interchangeable lens cameras are declining. This is a fact. At the same time though, there is still growth in the mirrorless market and more and more people are taking and sharing photos. So in terms of the imaging business overall, we have a great opportunity.

What is your strategy for taking advantage of this increase in photo-taking?

Our key interest lies in mirrorless cameras, represented by the OM line and the PEN line, but although we know that the market for compact cameras is shrinking,there's still demand for niche products like our TOUGH lineup.

The Olympus Stylus SP-100 is a 50X super-zoom camera with a built-in dot sight for accurately tracking moving subjects at the long end of the camera's zoom.

There are many things that a camera can offer which a smartphone can't. For example bright, large aperture lenses such as that employed in our Stylus 1 and our SP-100 that offers a 40X optical zoom and dot sight, which is more user-friendly than competitive cameras at long focal lengths. So there are some segments of the market which are not being eroded by smartphones. This is why our focus is on mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and high-end and special purpose compacts.

People’s basic desire to record their lives and express their personalities through creative expression won’t change. It’s a human instinct. More photos are taken on a daily basis now than ever before, as we’ve discussed.

The camera is and will remain the most credible device for self-expression through photography and we will keep on striving to include the latest optical and digital technology to realize this. We need to make our cameras reliable and responsive.

In the medium-term future, is it more important for Olympus to attract an entry-level customer base or an enthusiast audience?

It’s definitely important for us, and in fact for the entire industry to expand the number of people out there who are interested in taking photos with cameras. Whether that’s young people, women, men - expanding that community is very important. At the same time it’s very important for Olympus to attract enthusiasts. These two areas are equally important and we have been successful at attracting entry-level customers with the PEN lineup, and we’ll provide more enhancements to this lineup, both in terms of technology and features.

OM-D has been very well-received by photo enthusiasts, and has been praised for image quality as well as customization and build-quality. With the lineup that we have now, of PEN and OM-D products we’re capable of cultivating both low and high-end customers.

When you were planning the OM-D series, what did you want to achieve?

We had a sense that as SLRs became DSLRs and sensors replaced film that the cameras were getting chunkier and chunkier. What we really wanted to achieve with the OM-D series was to use the optical heritage that we have, and combine that with the digital technology that we’ve been working on such as 5-axis image stabilization to achieve the maximum possible image quality while maintaining portability.

Hirofumi Imano pictured with (l-r) the OM-D E-M10, E-M5, special edition E-M5 with crinkle finish and the flagship OM-D E-M1

[photo: Barnaby Britton]

We now have a 3-camera OM-D lineup, and we’ve been getting a lot of praise for the reliability of the cameras, and also for the image quality which people are saying is equal and in some cases better than DSLRs. We’re seeing this kind of feedback from our customers and we want more and more people to join the system and enjoy shooting with these cameras.

Do you see these cameras as an evolution of the film OM-series? If so, how?

The OM-D series definitely inherits things from the OM-line, most importantly maintaining portability without compromising image quality. One of the slogans of the original OM was 'from photomicrography to astrophotography’ - meaning that you could use the cameras to shoot subjects varying from bacteria to the cosmos. We’re still working on developing the OM-D system but definitely yes - a lot is inherited.

Can you describe your career path within Olympus?

I started out as an R&D engineer working on our voice-recorders, back in the days of tape. After my experience with recorders for the past ten-fifteen years I’ve been involved in product planning for our cameras, also industrial design and user interface, before moving into product strategy. The first cameras I worked on were one of our first weatherproof compacts, the Stylus 710, and the Stylus Verve, which was a stylish, unique compact shaped like a raindrop.

How important is video for your customers now, and how important do you think it will become in the future?

It’s hard to predict the future but more and more, especially in the US and Europe we’re hearing requests for more improvements in our cameras’ video capabilities, both at the enthusiast and consumer level. The design of our lenses, and systems like image stabilization are impacted by the need for our cameras to shoot video as well as stills. We wouldn’t say that we’re 100% there yet, but we’re actively working to optimize video performance in our lineup of both cameras and lenses.

We stepped into the Micro Four Thirds format with this in our minds - it’s a format optimized for still as well as video. Some things are still on the horizon, but we’re already considering video in the design of our lenses, for example the MSC focusing system.

Panasonic, one of your Micro Four Thirds partners has a history of producing dedicated video cameras, is there an opportunity in that market for Olympus?

There is definitely very big business opportunity. There’s increasing demand, and the technology is improving. There’s equipment out there for professionals, and also for a consumer audience such as the various sports-cam style cameras which is really gaining traction in a lot of markets. But whether you’re shooting stills or video, the image comes through a lens, and as an optics manufacturer we’re setting very high standards. Perhaps this is an area that we can cultivate in our business - lenses for professional video gear.

Would you describe Olympus as an optics manufacturer that also makes cameras?

Yes.

Something I’ve been told by other manufacturers is that consumers in different countries around the world want different things from cameras. Have you found this to be true?

In terms of ergonomics, we tend to find that at the enthusiast level, our customers have a more or less uniform idea of what they’re comfortable with, regardless of where they are in the world.

When it comes to the functionality that people want there are slight differences in the feedback depending on territory, but honestly it largely remains the same. Especially when it comes to our interchangeable lens products. That said, more of our customers in the US and Europe are vocal about wanting more advanced video functionality than in Japan and Asia, and our Asian customers are more vocal about ergonomics - things like how the dials feel. They’re very picky.

Why do you think mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are not more popular in the USA and Europe compared to Asia?

One reason is maybe the perception, on behalf of customers and maybe even sales associates in stores that cameras from the bigger brands are better. The other thing is sensor size - DSLRs have APS-C and full-frame sensors inside them, but the mirrorless market is mainly APS-C and smaller, and for a long time it was mainly just Micro Four Thirds. Maybe there’s a perception that bigger sensors equals bigger image quality, which has hindered growth in the mirrorless market in the USA and Europe.

I think our reason to exist in this industry is to push the envelope with a system that maintains a good balance between image quality and portability. By pushing the envelope we firmly believe we can expand our customer base and also capture enthusiast photographers who might not be having fun with their bigger, bulkier DSLRs.

The OM-D E-M1 is Olympus's flagship mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, and was voted best of its type of 2013, and best product of 2013 overall by dpreview readers.

As an optics manufacturer, we know that it isn’t as simple as saying 'a bigger sensor always delivers better image quality than a smaller sensor'. It's more complicated than that. It’s a combination of multiple factors including lens resolution, sensor and image processing. We have to keep on communicating to our customers, and to retailers, that things aren’t as simple as they might have heard.

In Japan, currently 50% of the market is mirrorless, but a few years ago it was the same situation here as we’re currently seeing in the USA and Europe. But we just stuck firmly to our position, and kept on communicating to customers that there’s another option, which is small and light and takes beautiful images.

I spoke to Fujifilm recently, and I was told by a senior marketing executive that if Canon and Nikon made serious mirrorless cameras, this would help the format to gain traction. Do you agree?

Well that’s his view! We’ll keep on communicating the benefits of mirrorless but Canon and Nikon dominate the interchangeable lens camera market and if they did come out with serious, reliable mirrorless cameras, I agree that yes - it might stimulate the market and boost sales of our cameras. Maybe it’s intentional that they haven’t launched enthusiast-focused mirrorless cameras, because they’re dominant. They’ve been maturing their systems for years. Maybe it’s strategic that they’re staying away.

The future is very challenging, but it’s exciting too. We’ll have to work hard.

Comments

All manufacturers are pushing the envelope. The difference is the size of the envelope. Olympus is pushing the 4/3 envelope. Hasselblad is pushing the 6x4.5 cm envelope. Canon, Sony and Nikon are pushing the Full Frame envelope. Sigma, Fuji, and Pentax are pushing the APS-C envelope.

Olympus interview - 'our reason to exist is to push the envelope' Is 'push the envelope' another expression for bribe? :PJust push an envelope to the judgeOlympus moto - 'We live to Bribe', 'Another day, another successfull bribery'Just kidding, but I think they had some sort of trouble with the law

I first used Pixel Mapping about 15 years ago and I say thanks for giving this to the public so early in the digital camera revolution. I can't believe I bought a Nikon DSLR last year that didn't have it. What's worse, it came with bad pixels from the factory. I feel like I have been transported to some prehistoric place.

Thanks for dropping SmartMedia too :)I have some great memories of Olympus cameras (C-4000 and E-520, which I still use)....so thank you to all involved.

It's one of the sharpest lenses I've used; it's still incredibly sharp with a 2x teleconverter, wide open (at f/7), at any focus distance; it's small and light and does precisely what it says on the tin.

A certain minimum size is always required to get good ergonomics. I want a camera with good customization and many dials and buttons. EM1 or XT1 size at least is necessary for me.The image circle of m43 is smaller than APSC and FF resulting in smaller lenses. A Sony A7r with a FF 2.8 stabilised zoom? The form factor will be lost. I use both Systems to get the best possible benefit.

FF DSLRs aren't going to get any smaller than APS-C DSLRs, which are relatively large and fat compared to m4/3 bodies. And are FF lenses going to get any smaller? Nope. FF lenses are pretty huge compared to m4/3 lenses. I love my FF DSLR gear, but all of it is large, chunky, and fat compared to my m4/3 gear. That's why I have *both* FF and m4/3 gear...they each have their pros and cons, especially when it comes to the size of the gear! For work, I still mainly use my DSLR gear, but for my personal, casual, travel, street, and around-town shooting, I always grab my m4/3 camera.

It's great having the option of both. But I don't see FF DSLRs ever getting as small as m4/3 cameras. Add in lenses, and the difference in size is even greater. That's a physical size gap that won't ever be bridged. Maybe the price gap will shrink, but not everything is about price. With m4/3, part of the value proposition is the size of the equipment.

Not addressed: Why mirrorless costs so much. A smaller format, inferior viewing, slower performance, lesser image quality/dynamic range, yet more expensive. Like it or not, these are the decisions customers are making every day. Pay more for less.

They haven't taken over the world as promised. Price is likely the biggest factor. This would have been a huge topic for him to have addressed.

Agree the E-M10 is their most aggressive offering to date. OTOH, only one Olympus camera has on-sensor PDAF so that feature is not responsible for the cost of any of their other cameras. Also, EVFs are basically off-the-shelf parts now anyway.

Oh my...strange, since that´s one of the better medium range zooms there is, overall.

If used w a newer m4/3 camera it offers high enough resolution/sharpness that you can (almost) compensate the lack of those last 20mm in the tele end by cropping the image, if you need "60mm". Related to using the old 12-60 on the best of the 4/3 cameras, which had 12 Mpix, vs the new lens on the newer m4/3 camera´s 16 Mpix.

Or did you mean to diss the 12-50/3,5-6,3? Ok, it´s not as good as the old 12-60 or the 12-40, of course...but it´s not that bad either.

But my feelings for this lens is mixed. Optically the lens is just a bit short of complete and utter junk.

At 12mm sharpness is fine but the vignetting is not. At F3.5 the corners are nearly black and that is not exaggerating. at 50mm it's not just slow it's also too soft.

OTOH it's electronic zoom is great in video. And the the focus is silent and snappy with the GX7. Macro mode of this lens is also very impressive. So it's a versatile lens which can perform well between 14-35mm with nice macro.

@revio:Nowhere did I remotely imply the 12-40 is junk. It's obviously a great lens, but too expensive with too short a reach. The idea of using it with intent to crop is one of those compromises some insist on to justify obvious inadequacy. The 12-60 is another great lens, but is not MFT and requires an adaptor on MFT. I do not believe in lens adaptors - more clumsy, compromised solutions to pay for and keep track of. Furthermore the 12-60 is bulky for MFT. The 12-50 is absolute junk! See BarnET's comments on its pathetic optics. I do not expect speed with walk-around lenses, but f/6.3 on a VERY modest zoom range is absurd! The 14-42 is more junk as is the 14-150 (like all super zooms) I would like to see Olympus develop a system that accentuates the main benefit of the MFT format, which is portability along with potential for superb, moderately priced optics. They have not even begun to do that. There is only a choice between junk zooms, expensive zooms, and primes.

It's really not much of a partnership. Sony owns a decent chunk of Olympus, but in terms of product development (like Sony providing sensors to Olympus), it's still a standard buyer/seller relationship.

It seems the argument here is the big camera crowd saying:"this is why FF/35mm is better" and the m43 crowd saying "but this is why I bought m43 and didn't buy FF/35mm"

rince repeat.

I'll join in. I am so stoked with m43. I do freelance travel photography. I moved from Nikon to m4/3 two years ago. So The big cameras were near on perfect until I had a comparison. I notice the EM-5 with a panny 20mm 1.7 gives a beautiful shallow portrait, but doesn't take away the natural smile on people facing a guy with a camera. The EM-1 gets pulled out in stiking jungle humidity with a 2.8 zoom that's also safely weatherproofed.

Those cameras are no longer insured. The price vs features required makes it affordable to risk having to replace a camera. I am saving money.

The size and weight benefits are appreciated no-end and the difference in image quality non-existant. really, the last 7 of 8 projects have been for digital end-use. I have not had to adjust to anything more than the button latout.

personally, m43 was godsend.Great interview! Keep pumping those high end bodies and lenses out Olympus, I'll keep buying them.

Samuli: exactly my observation with Em1 and D610. I don't understand theses religious battles, why not use the strengths available in both formats? I must add, however, that the usual customer is not investing in two systems.

If you try to shoot some street photography with the 1ds you will fail. Becouse the presence of that massive camera will change the behaviour of everyone around you.

Shooting sports with almost all M43 camera's will also fail since it hunts all over the place. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Just do NOT underestimate the image quality of M43 because of it's slightly smaller sensor. With some primes it will leave you impressed. Especially the recent ones.

Dear plasnuThere is no perfect camera or sensor format in this world ...yet. That's why some of us have multiple systems. I use both FF Nikons as well as MFT Panasonic and OLympus. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. It is like comparing a corvette with a maita... What is best is what suits you at the time.I find myself using the iPhone the most..like they say, the best camera is what you have with you, and for what it is , The iPhone consistently makes impressive images.As for pushing the envelope, I think Sony is really doing that with the A7 and the RX1 in terms of size, but most other developments are refinements and evolutionary.Don't get too hung up with the format and enjoy making images.

I find it disquieting that photographers for the world's biggest camera review website can't take a decent head-and-shoulders pic. The background in the above pic is just awful. I used to be a newspaper journalist, and if any of our photogs came back with a shot like that they would be ... well, they would be shot. It doesn't do much for the credibility of dpreview.com that their photographers can't take photos and they consistently block/shut down threads that criticise their favourite brands.

that's a bunch of bull! "pushing the envelope", wack! more like giving it a new spin, but Olympus is certainly NOT pushing any envelope in the imaging dept.even though I am not a fan, I reckon only Sigma is really pushing the envelope here against a considerable pull-back from the mainstream and with relative success. truth be told, Olympus is just another speck of dust in the canon-nikon-sony comet which currently lead the mainstream.

That Sony mirrorless camera you use greypixelz, remind us did Sony design the concept of them first? Or what about the dust filter inside it. Who brought those out first? Almost forgot, the live view Sony uses who was the first camera company to bring that out? A clue to all three answers... It was not Sony.

I'm not sure why you're getting any glee out of that. Less choice and less competition in the marketplace is a bad thing. Just because it may be a brand that you aren't using doesn't mean that you should find any enjoyment in the elimination of a company from the marketplace. Do we really want it to be a three or four brand market? Or a two or three brand market? Maybe you do, but I don't.

The fact that one or more camera brands will have to exit the marketplace in the not too distant future has been known, by those of us who follow these trends, for a long time. There'll be fewer competitors because there will be fewer overall camera sales to angle for. It's normal for brands to disappear from time to time. Remember Contax, Kodak, Minolta, etc.. Heck, some, like Olympus, even reappear after a long absence. For me, following these trends is kind of a hobby. So yes, I'm chuckling, because I believe I can finally pin a date on the start of the next episode of this particular marketplace soap opera. It's like fantasy football to me. It's entertainment!

"The fact that... will have to... in the not too distant future has been known..." Just FYI, before something has really happened it's not a fact but a mere conjecture or an educated guess if you please.

@Donnie G- You find it entertaining. I find your "entertainment" pretty pathetic. It's like cheering that a new animal species has disappeared. "Woohoo! The polar bear has gone extinct! I win! Hehehe." Pretty sad that you find such things so enjoyable. But I suspect you're the kind of person who also enjoys firing people, too.

Some private equity group will think up a way to reinvent Olympus: strip out the cost structure, keep the licenses and copyrights, manufacture in the PRC, and keep alive the brand, perhaps for another 10 years.

How different from projecting our own obituaries! No buyers or investors. No customers. Only grim creatures of carrion.

Why isn't Pentax on my list of extinct species? Good question. Well, while itty bitty little ole Pentax would seem to be extremely weak in this declining camera market, it should be noted that they are already lean and mean. They don't have a bunch of redundant low end compact models. They do interchangeable lens models exclusively, and more importantly, they have an excellent up market camera in their 645D that competes in a space that neither of the big 2 are in. So yes, I think Pentax could prove to be a stronger competitor under these market conditions than most. I'm willing to bet that Ricoh thinks so too. :)

I think Eleson's point was that Pentax is already extinct. They no longer exist as an independent camera manufacturer, having been bought by Ricoh. I don't think Pentax is maintained as a separate division, like they were within Hoya. There is just Ricoh now, making cameras under two brand names.

Because they are almost never reviewed by any of the large review sites, it's easy to forget that there are several smaller manufacturers in the market, companies that mostly make compact cameras, usually of the very cheap sort. I'm thinking of companies like AgfaPhoto, Benq, Casio, HP, JK Imaging, Rollei and Sakar. Kodak was also a manufacturer of cheap compacts and bridge cameras before they left the camera market, and I'll bet that the next one to "die" is another of those low-end compact camera makers. I definitely think that Olympus will be around making cameras a year from now.

I can only speak to why I personally have been reticent to invest in mirror less and M4/3 systems. 1) If I'm going to have to carry a large-ish camera around (as in bigger than say a Sony rx100ii) then I want it to have very high image quality, especially in low light (I tend to but out the big camera to shoot shows, or natural light evening events). Apsc and full frame meets those needs. 2) 4/3rd cameras were supposed to be the next bigthing... But the IQ wwasn't so hot and then it all got abandoned when micro4/3 came along. I'm hesitant to invest in a system that might evaporate in 5yrs. Full frame and Apsc are proven. 3) why are lenses so expensive on m4/3? Aren't 50mm 1.8 lenses equivalent still like $300 compared to less than half that on crop-sensors? 4) I don't often need zoom, but when I do, like for a wedding, having a 34mm to 210mm equivalent is what I need. You can't even get a lens like that for m4/3 (can you?)

I'm really drawn to the small size, the hybrid viewfinder (focus peaking), touch screens and built in image stabilization of the omd series though. I'm *this close* to making the jump. (or to the new fuji stuff.

3) Why do the DSLR 50mm f/1.8 primes have to be stopped down 2 stops before they are even close to as sharp as the m43 25mm primes (oh, and thereby loosing all light capture & DOF advantages)? Because they are OLD. Why are they half the price of the much sharper m43 lenses? Because they are OLD.

The 16MP MFT sensors have been refined since first announced but I remain skeptical of the MFT as a system. I own and use MFT cameras and find this system very flexible and efficient. However, I'm not sure that Olympus and Panasonic will manage to keep a steady progress indefinitely given the physical limitations of the MFT sensor.

All sensors of all sizes have physical limitations. e.g. FF sensors are limited in the size of lenses that must accommodate the FF sensor. Improvement in sensors is improvement across the board, not just one format. There will always be an IQ gap, but there will always be a physical size gap of body and lenses.

Agree. There is always a balance between a lot of factors. Just imagine that one day, the cell phones integrates with MF sensor while keeping similar portability. It will be almost a death to Canon and Nikon. Who knows the next innovation on technology!

Er... if somebody makes a magic cell phone that takes as good pictures as a FF Canon or Nikon with an integrated 14-200mm F/1.4 zoom lens, that will be the death of all camera divisions, not just Canon and Nikon. Nobody is going to buy a MFT camera when their phone takes better pictures... But I am personally not holding my breath.

Olympus needs to work harder on the IQ front. The IQ of the E-M1 is pretty much line-ball with the older E-M5. In fact, the past six m4/3rds from Olympus have all been fitted with 16mp sensors. The E-M1 is now as large/heavy as a full-frame camera (Sony A7/R) yet IQ quality is no better than the miniature GM1 (also fitted with a 16mp sensor).

It has only been about 2 years since Olympus first released the 16mp sensor in the E-M5. That compares favorably with the other camera makers. As for your last comment, you could make a similarly inane criticism of the large/heavy DSLRs that have IQ no better than the smaller/lighter Sony A7/R.

Isn't 16Mp enough for most of us? Who really needs 36MP? I bet it's a small minority of photographers including enthusiasts. The 16MP are enough for A3 prints, how many do you have in your house? Why do you compare the largest m43 camera with the smallest FF camera, does this make sense? What if you attach a 70-200/2.8 zoom to the Sony, the weight of the body doesn't play a major role then anymore. Considering the price of the Sony lenses (excellent, but not fast glass), how much will other fast primes cost compared to m43 and what about weight and size, stabilisation?

Sigma was really funny."But we have the best low I so performance."Yeah but the foveon has a reputation to completely fall apart at around 400-800. The sluggish operation of the camera's combined with the very hard raw process makes it an very poor all round system. I do agree that in the right hands with a lot of love and patience the results can be spectacular though.

Sigma's bread and butter are predominantly lenses. Nothing to be ashamed about lately with art series.What they do with Foveon sensor and their cameras is a different story. Good things will surely come to those who wait for the product fitting their particular needs.

I agree on many points why it's not selling so well outside of Asia. In America, everything is big- big Mac, big cars, and very big people :) and Olympus and Panasonic are trying to sell them vegetables in Geo Metro package....try 100 years later when we really run out of all resources!

MacBook Air is a big success and, despite Steve Jobs claim that Apple would never make a small tablet, the iPad Mini is also very popular. As for stereotyping Asians, the large phablet phones are very popular in Japan & Korea and GM has trouble meeting demand for Buicks in China. Your argument also doesn't explain why yearly mirrorless shipments to the Americas were 45% lower in 2013 than in 2012. http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2013_e.pdf

I agree with Michael. Not everything is big in the U.S. The popularity of netbooks are a perfect example. People in the U.S. definitely do like portability . . . thus the popularity of the compact cameras and the push for smaller, thinner compact cameras with big screens years ago. Now the people want thinner phones with even bigger screens and better cameras and faster processors and faster data speeds.

I think people don't see the point in having a "compact" big, interchangeable-lens camera. If you're going to carry a "big" camera with lenses, then you're going to be carrying a bag with all that stuff in it. Does it really matter whether that bag with lenses is 30 cm or 35 cm long or whether it weighs 3 kg or 4 kg? I think most people want the best image quality they can get or no big camera at all . . . and the price is about the same, so why not go a little bigger? There is another issue. People believe that Canon and Nikon are the best they can get. It's reputation.

No, I think the reason is people have not caught up with technology. Most people I have talked to who are camera enthusiast have never even heard of mirrorless. They don't know it exists. The idea that bigger is better has always been around since the digital era. Now the tide has changed and you can great shots even out of small systems, it will just take time to educate everyone. It will happen, but who knows who will be left standing.

No, no, no. The reason for the huge falling of the mirrorless is about the pricing. Americans can easily pick up Canon Rebel and Nikon 5200 in their supermarket with $600. Where are the mirrorless camera? PENS are very ugly and EM5/EM1 targets high-end people. The availibiity of lenses are also in consideration.

EM10 is a big and good step for Olys. Keep the pricing comparative is the king.

I use APS-C and FF. But I also use m4/3. I like m4/3 for what it is. It allows for lens sizes that simply aren't attainable with APS-C and FF. I guess that's why I like m4/3. Personally for me, if I had to consolidate down to only two formats for my own use, it would be m4/3 and FF. Small and big. But that's just me.

No, it's just that the answer is obvious. Technology getting better and format size shrinking has already happened once. It is happening (has already happened, with cell phones) again. The answer should be predictable, though, based on common sense. Why would better sensors mean that you need a bigger sensor?

This isn't entirely true. Medium format has been sold alongside 135 format 35mm for 80 years, both formats have coexisted. Pentax has released a lot of medium format film cameras in the last 40 years, with the most recent being 2001.

What I don't get is pricing- The first 3 generations of PENs were sold at a 50% discount some 6 months after they were released, the P5 is still at the original price after 9 months, the PL5 dropped by less than 15% in much over a year. Compared to many competitors, they are just too expansive and the policy is confusing. I understand that for lenses, but cameras?

The E-P1, E-P2 and E-P3 kept their high prices pretty long. The E-PM and E-PL did go down pretty fast. Maybe it was because the targeted audience and Olympus trying to penetrate the market with models that hadn't the recognition like a Rebel or D3100.

Olympus has also kept the E-5 at full price or close to it. Based on poor sales of the E-P3, they may have decided to produce a much smaller number of E-P5s with the aim in mind of selling to a niche market that is willing to pay full price.

I don't understand the whole 4/3 and micro-4/3 pricing. They cost as much as full-fledged DSLR equipment. I guess some people put a premium on price, but when something is miniaturized, it is supposed to be cheaper. That does not seem to have happened here. In fact, it seems quite the opposite, and THAT is something I just can't understand. There is an advantage to a larger sensor. That is why full-frame is so popular, vs. APS-C sensor cameras and why people pay so much for them (and their lenses). Why then is it MORE expensive for smaller sensors? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. I guess that is why I have never bought a 4/3 or micro-4/3 camera . . . even though there is such a wide variety of lenses for them now . . . finally. Of course, the micro-4/3 sort of took some momentum away from the whole 4/3 movement. I wonder what's going to happen next.

I'm a huge Olympus fanboy, and I agree with you that their cameras are overpriced. However, how can you say that miniature costs less, always? That's never been the case in consumer electronics, unless you're talking about something where you're primarily paying for the size of the screen. In general, small = what people want = more demand = costs more.

Look at cell phones. Before there were smart phones, the smaller the better, and the more expensive. Then smart phones got bigger, because the size of the screen was important (as it is with televisions, etc.). The way I see it, small commands a price premium, although I agree with you, Olympus should charge less.

@Scottelly "when something is miniaturized, it is supposed to be cheaper."

Since when? Miniaturisation, putting the same capabilities into a smaller space, is more difficult to design, and more difficult to manufacture. This extra difficulty always cost more, not less. Always. ALWAYS.

You agree with MichaelKJ a little earlier that it's a Stereotype that all Americans believe "bigger is automatically better", then you REINFORCE the Stereotype with this "something made with less stuff should cost less than something made with more stuff" stupidity.

"That is why full-frame is so popular, vs. APS-C sensor cameras"

As pointed out by Thorgrem, this is utter nonsense, APS-C cameras far outsell Full Frame.

To counter people like you, we need an add on to "Flag as inappropriate", something like "Flag as just plain Dumb".

I feel like the primary reason that compact mirrorless has not caught on in the US, like it has in the rest of the world, is that Americans generally want to look like "real" photographers. We have this misconception that a big camera automatically makes you a professional, and with the disposable income that we have in the US, people simply go out and purchase a DSLR to impress their friends. Just go to a local park and look at all of the parents lugging around massive Nikons just to take pictures of their kids on the slide. It's silly. The Asian consumer understands the benefit of a smaller camera IMO.

It will take a few more years for mirror-less to become mainstream. Remember DSLRs ? For years only pros and advanced amateurs owned them. Now look around and every soccer mom and dad owns a Nikon or Canon DSLR. People in this particular market segment seem to be a few years behind.

Personally I would definitely prefer the smaller size of mirrorless (I'm not American), but currently for the same price DSLRs offer better performance. A D7100 is cheaper than an OM-D E-M1 and D7000 is much cheaper. Add in the price and availability of older used/refurbished lenses, and a DSLR will clearly seem better for someone who's cost conscious.

Regarding the fact that Americans don't seem to care about small cameras: it's not surprising that in a country where the majority of the population drives a car daily, portability is not the main concern

I cannot speak for other people, but here is the way I look at mirrorless cameras. Sure they are smaller, but the tradeoff is considerable. You don't have the optical viewfinder, and the sensor isn't any bigger. In some cases the sensor is actually smaller,and noisier. And the price of the camera and lenses are steeper since there are hardly any used lenses out there. On top of that I need new lenses, or use adapters and lose AF capability. These are steep prices to pay for a slight bit of compactness, and I am not willing to pay them.

When I am photographing birds in flight with a 400mm lens, I need AF. A more compact camera is useless, since the lens dwarfs my DSLR camera, and a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor and a 400mm AF lens would cost more than I have already spent for the same setup and it does not give me any better image quality or any noticeably decrease in size and weight.

@AnastigmatI only have Canon gear in my head for reference, but you can't seriously tell me that the APS-C EF-S 55-250mm F45.6 STM is anywhere as large as its full frame counterpart, EF 100-400mm F4-5.6. And that's APS-C DSLR, not even mirrorless only, which would be even smaller. If and when Canon gets around to building a mirrorless with decent motion AF, it'll give you a dramatically smaller system for bird shooting.

Except to get 400mm equiv. All you need is a m4/3 200mm. An om-d e-m1 or 5 with the relatively small 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 will do a pretty close optical job and at 8.5X15cm and under a kilo I'm willing to bet it's much much cheaper than a FF 400mm F3.5 and a good hell of a lot smaller and lighter. I would be curious to know how big, heavy and expensive an equivalent speed FF 400mm set up is. I'm betting it's a lot less trivial than people are making out.

Thanks for the all of the insightful replies.1) jutme - AF on the PEN system is lightning fast2) szhorvat - DSLRs probably offer more performance for the $$, but how much performance does the average consumer need. Heck, the iphone is good enough for most.3) The car analogy is exactly where I was coming from. We want more, we want more!!4) Anastigmat - Again, for enthusiast work, other than street photography, DSLR is probably better, but for the average consumer who is accustomed to taking pictures with an iphone, M43 is the obvious choice for "print worthy" photographs. This leads me to believe that M43 should see a higher market share, if the consumer were not just trying to impress friends with a "pro-style" camera.5) Jim - I agree with that :)

Olympus expects to cut losses from imaging products from Y23b to Y5b for the year ending this March. To turn a profit in the next year will not be easy, though, if unit sale continue to decline. To date, none of the companies publish any analysis of profitss or losses on particular categories. the big unknown is whether, after discontinuing most P&S operations, sales of system or high-end cameras will generate sufficient returns to justify the R&D, overhead, and capital. Not an easy assignment! FYE Mar-15 will be the camera world's end time and final judgment of the quick or dead.

Did Mr. Imano's phone ring during the interview? Wonder how many camera company execs are fond of smart phones or using them as cameras?

One thing about Olympus though, is that camera R&D is useful in other areas of their imaging business. They have stated so publicly. So Olympus does not necessarily view a loss in the camera department as a complete negative, if they have come up with optical solutions that can be used elsewhere. Olympus is in a different position than, say, Nikon, where pretty much everything is the camera business.

R&D cross-pollination is most certainly not unique to Olympus. Every major camera company has other significant optical businesses, and they all benefit from R&D crossover (in both directions, by the way -- i.e. Olympus's R&D for medical optics, which is huge compared to its camera R&D, has undoubtedly helped cameras over the years).

As for Nikon, its current position where 3/4ths of its revenue comes from cameras is historically somewhat unusual for the company. But, yes, Nikon is definitely much more vulnerable to a downturn in the camera business than any other major company.

No need to lose money selling cameras to cross-pollinate the medical imaging. Just transfer a few imaging specialists to medical imaging and then shut down the camera business.

Nikon's main defense willl be to cut down product numbers and costs. R&D and changes to products will be modest. A D5400 will be much like a D5100. The market will be smaller, but there will always be someone, somewhere to by a "starter" DSLR, and at least a tiny pool of pros who pay sky high to upgrade their D4.

Olympus' 5-axis stabilization beats all other OIS or IBIS technologies. Only a floating gyro is better, and that works only in a fixed lens camcorder, or by mounting a camera on an expensive gyro mount.

@BarnET You can get round the framerate issue. I have a hacked GH1 that is PAL/NTSC selectable. For some slow-mo (ish) work I had it running in 60fps mode in a 50hz country in-doors. It worked fine with a 1/100th shutter speed, no problem with flicker.

Uninteresting interview. Complete PR from the interviewee, and the interviewer should have pointed to more potential reasons regarding the issues mirrorless has breaking out, like the overwhelming number of PENs Olympus has churned over the years.

Wait and see on the G1Xii for me... I handled the G1X Mki in the store the other day, and thought it was kind of cool. The viewfinder was adequate. I'm not sure about the same camera without a viewfinder. Also, I'm suspicious of the Mk ii lens/aperture/size/zoom combination. I have CHDK on my SX230HS, and it is an eye-opener to see what the photos look like in raw. At the wide end, for example, I get a completely vignetted result, wider field of view than the jpeg, and corners black! Obviously, to produce the jpeg, Canon does some serious cropping, stretching, etc. in-camera. It would not surprise me that the G1Xii features a small (well, we know that), not well corrected, not very sharp, lens, that Canon messes with in the firmware to get the stated headline specs. I know that m43 corrects lenses in-camera too, but not like I've seen from Canon. On the other hand, my SX230 lens has some sweet spots, too, where the lens is quite good.

No new PEN models and on another site Olympus said they are not interested in adding a VF to a PEN. I wonder if they are leaving that segment to Panasonic. It is almost liek they are trying not to compete with each other (Olympus not providing many video features).

Indeed. The Panasonic gx7 is an perfect reason to not buy a Olympus pen. However Olympus got the Panasonic g series beat with the rather excellent value em10. A part of the mirrorless market solidly in Panasonic's hand since the g1

The GX7 is a valiant attempt, but it is still kinda chunky and pricey.

I think mirrorless need those stripped-down, EVF-free, rangefinder bodies to attract budget conscious users who might be turned by the entry price of GX7s and OMDs. Or maybe they just don't like the DSLR-like bulk no matter how cheap you make it.

Many will be satisfied with their GM1s, GF6s, and Pens (and the kit lens) while others will want more and move up in the product line. Think of them as gateway mirrorless cameras.

If Olympus and Panasonic whant to survive(and get profit) must mantain small compact size and then integrate will sharing media, and why not transform in a kind of portable photographic-media like Galaxy phone wannabe, but better done of course. Imagine a flat Panasonic GM1 with phonecall and web transfer capabilities. Samsung is a step foward on this bet, despite actual photo community ignore them, they will be ready to apropiate of compact MILC segment like they´re doing on low and medium smart phone levels.

The main user interface on my E-M1 is the two programmable control dials, with a thumb switch changing their functions instantly. I don't think anyone else has this 2x2 interface and it works brilliantly. The rest of the menu stuff is one button click away to activate a Super Control Panel on the LCD. Where's the problem?

I use older Olympus cameras, and I've never had a problem with the Super Control Panel, or whatever it's called. It's easier to change settings than on other cameras that I've tried. I've read that some people have trouble finding it, but I've always just cycled through displays to get to it.

The super control panel is definitely better, I have no idea why its off by default. Diving into those pages of scrolling menus is time consuming and frustrating even after you're comfortable with the camera.

Wow, what a company! I love the comment "our reason to exist is to push the envelope". I just wished the OM-1D was as easy to use at Panasoinc's GH3. The menus and buttons on the Olympus are so much more confusing and that doesn't even address the video issues. However, I do think there are many photographers that don't give a hoot about video so this may be an assets for Olympus. I love that both Olympus and Panasoinc are pushing the envelope. The tried and true, Canon and Nikon have been at the top of the hill for a very long time and it's great to have a couple of other companies making them both feel the heat. Consumers will benefit in the end. Can you imagine if Nikon put there heart in to designing a smaller, lighter camera with their amazing quality and phenomenal optics.

Jogger is working hard today! :) Since the EM1 sensor is within 1 EV of FF sensors at most (not all) ISOs, I'll take the camera with that has F/2.8 zooms that are smaller than FF F/4 zooms. Optics are more important and so is functionality...which is why the EM1 won all those camera of the year awards. :)

@Lab D. If you go on DxOMark and compare the E-M1 to the A7 (roughly the same price) you'll see that the A7 is 2 stops better at noise performance at all ISOs. If you compare the base ISOs of both cameras the difference is even more dramatic.

The biggest flaw of these Olympus cameras is that they lack ISO 25, 50 and 100 (which would be the equivalent of ISO 100, 200 and 400 on full frame). Shooting an Olympus camera is like having a camera that can't go lower than ISO 800.

Don't get me wrong, I love my E-P5, but sensor performance is not the strong point.

I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras. The latest installments from Olympus look like SLR's from the outside, with a "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top. I'd vote down anything that adds cost, complexity, and battery draw. Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject. The original OM line had reflex mirrors, and were compact. The only gripe I had back then, in the 80's, was the strap lugs dug into my palms. From the look of it, they're still putting those nasty strap lugs on their cameras.

There are benefits to mirrorless for both the manufacturer and the consumer. For manufacturers they can reduce cost, and reduce the number of moving parts that can fail. For users, they provide much more information than optical viewfinders can- live feedback about exposure, white balance, histograms, etc.

Right now, good electronic viewfinders are expensive, and still don't give the same experience as a good optical viewfinder, but give them time. 5 or 10 years from now, the resolution, refresh rate and quality will be so high that you will not be able to distinguish EVF from OVF. At the same time, they will continue to get cheaper to build.

EVFs aren't quite there yet as a true replacement for OVFs, but they will be, in time.

" Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject"Thats Not true, and this is why: - this "tiny video" you're peering at is the same and ONLY one you will be peering at when you take the picture, there is no going back to real world view, you have a picture that you can print or view it on your monitor. Also current best olympus electronic vewfinder is as large as best optical viewfinders out thereAbout being separated from your subject - thats what I see when my DSLR friends shot, than put down the camera to look at display ( histogram etc ) = all this time I am still with the subject because I have all this info all the time ( or I can turn if off If I want )'

"I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras." Hard to argue about that, but please, don't hesitate to ask if you are interested in what some early adopters see as positives, and that some feel outweight the battery drain.

Let's start with a freebie: Mirrorless reduces cost. Today you can get cameras doing 24MP@11 fps for $600. With PDAF. So from now on, look at the mirrorbox as something that adds cost and complexity.

As it turns out, the "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top of OMDs contains a 5-axis stabiliser (not to be found in "real" SLRs) which does actually have some usefulness, unlike a real optical pentaprism and its flippin' mirror (which add cost, complexity, and battery draw).

"Mathewson you have not tried an E-M1 out have you. If you had you would know the viewfinder is the same size as a full frame camera."And much brighter. After getting my E-M5 and would never go back. The resolution is already nearly undiscernible and they are much brighter for catching the best sports action out there.

An EVF gives you the sensors view of the world. An OVF gives you the mirrors view of the world. It is the sensors view of the world that ends up on your memory card. You also get all that live feedback rpm40 mentioned, instead of having to check that stuff after you've taken the shot.

Well lets see the profit first.. i doubt it and it would only come at cost cutting.

The time for them to be profitable was 2-3 years ago. Today they are up against Fuji's excellent X line for retro photogs, Panasonic is the go-to choice for video, Sony for FF in a small package, Canon/Nikon for traditional DSLRs, Sony for their RX line, Sigma for foveon, Ricoh for compact APSc.

Olympus doesnt excel at anything. Most likely they are setting themselves up to sell off their ILC assets.

No the time to be profitable is whenever they can achieve it. You set silly arbitrary limits and then claim they can't do ir. It's over. The image division losses are at a fraction of what they were two quarters ago. If the trend continues, they will be in the black by next quarter. Fuji, Sony and Canikon DSLRs were there before.

It's not just cost-cutting, it's investing and producing products people want. You know, the kind of products that keeps winning reader awards over here.

They excel at unmatched compactness (a trait they share with Panasonic) in a mirrorless camera (well, Pentax Q series and Nikon 1 are smaller, but with way smaller sensors too). I think they hit a sweet spot between compactness and sensor size.

These are all arguments for my choice to switch/augment my camera gear with an Olympus m43 camera.

OK Stu, lets see some facts about when Nikon almost went under. Nikon is not vulnerable, they are one of only 2 camera makers who always post a profit, they have tons of cash in the bank, and are even profitable when everyone else is almost bankrupt selling the same product.

People used to say the same at General Motors. Eventually their innate conservatism and lack of innovation led them to bankruptcy. Olympus' imaging business feeds into their medical imaging business and so Olympus can tolerate a certain level of losses though probably not as high as it has been.They've also already cut a lot of costs, mainly related to the compact camera market.Once the closure costs fall out of the business it is likely that the imaging business will be close to making a profit.As m43 develops and matures much of the development costs associated with starting a system from scratch will fall and price wise they will become more competitive. The EM-10 is a good example of this using technology developed for the earlier OM-D cameras. This means they will be able to compete on price with lower level dSLRs which also use mature technology.

James Pilcher, video doesn't add too much complexity, as most features that are wanted are merely software-side.

Olympus video is not bad per se, but there are a few options missin (such as 25 fps). If the Olympus can handle 30 fps, surely it can handle 25 fps, it's only a matter of software features, and not too complex to add at all.

Now if Olympus cameras had no video features at all, you'd be right, it's complex to add it to a stills-only camera. But that's not the case.

James, though from a personal perspective I agree with you, expectations are different nowadays and Oly has to adapt, particularly with 25fps which affects a large percentage of the market.Quite simply, many 'photographers' don't distinguish between video and stills in the way that older photographers do and expect to switch between them at will.I suspect that still frame capture from video will become the default for many people in the near future as the technology matures

Would someone please tell Mr. Imano that sensor size is not just about image quality, or the perception of quality - it's about image control. It has less to do with megapixels, and more to do with the ability to control depth of field.

For some uses, like shall DOF full body portraits or wide angles, 35mm gives control that m4/3 just can't. But for me, I agree with Bob, it's a nice compromise. Good for low light shooting when you don't want shallow DOF.

Depends what you want out of the camera. If you're someone who raves about bokeh and wants DOF as shallow as you want, then go FF and use fast primes. If you're someone who's looking for great depth of field, crisp detail from foreground to distance, then small sensors are fine. The only problem with small sensors then is too much noise from cramming too many pixels onto the sensor, and the associated problem of trying to hid it with over-done noise reduction. A 6mp m4/3 sensor could be a killer.

You're right but that goes both ways. If you're going for extremely shallow DoF, it's harder (but not impossible) to get that on a M43 camera.

However, that also means once you need more DoF, M43 wiill have a natural advantage.

@Matthewson: you're wrong, Micro Four Thirds has approximately the same kind of DoF control as an APS-C camera (at least there's not so much difference). If you cannot get shallow depth of field on a M43 camera, you should question your skills, not your gear.

If point and shoots had enough dynamic range I'd be using them in lieu of m43. I spent most of my 35mm film days trying to figure out how to get more DOF, not less.And it was even worse with Medium Format film.

More about products in this article

Olympus has released a major firmware update for two of its OM-D cameras as well as the PEN-F. It adds support for Profoto's TTL flash system and also brings numerous new features and bug fixes. Read more

The new Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is quite a camera. Capable of shooting at up to 60fps at full-resolution, and packing high-bitrate 4K video and in-body stabilization, the E-M1 II is a powerhouse. But if you already have an E-M1, is it worth the upgrade? Find out

Olympus unveiled the details of two fairly significant firmware updates, both of which will be available for download, for free, come November. The flagship Olympus OM-D E-M1 will receive firmware version 4.0. while the not even one-year-old OM-D E-M5 II will receive firmware version 2.0. Read more

Olympus has announced that it is is producing a new limited edition 'Titanium' OM-D E-M5 II camera. The Titanium E-M5 II will offer all of the same features and specs of the regular version, with its top and bottom plates swapped out for dark metallic versions that match those of the OM-3/Ti from 1994. Worldwide, 7,000 copies of the Titanium model will be made, though how many will be available in the US is yet to be announced. The company is also readying firmware updates for both the E-M1 and E-M5 II, related mostly to underwater shooting. Read more

When we attended CP+ last month in Yokohama, Japan we sat down with senior executives from several major camera and lens manufacturers. Among them was Haruo Ogawa, President of the Imaging Business Group and Executive Managing Officer at Olympus Corporation. Among other things we spoke to Mr Ogawa about the current and future direction of Micro Four Thirds and the challenges of introducing 4K video. Click through to read our interview

Sony's a7R Mark III shoots 42.4MP files at 10fps and incorporates a robust video feature set, large battery, refined ergonomics and more. It certainly looks impressive, but what is it like to use, and how does it stack up against the rest of the market? Find out in our full review.

The DJI Spark has received a lot of attention thanks to its diminutive size, but how does it stack up? In our review, we take a look at what it's like to fly this pint-sized drone, as well as what's in it for photographers.

Latest buying guides

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

Those shooting portraits and weddings need a camera with a decent autofocus system, which won't give up in low interior lighting. Good image quality at medium/high ISO sensitivity settings is a must, and great colors straight out of the camera will make your life much easier. These days, video is a big deal too. Read on to see which cameras are best suited to those tasks.

National Geographic has revealed the winner's of its annual Nature Photographer of the Year contest, and every shot from the Grand Prize winner down to the Honorable Mentions and People's Choice awards are fantastic.

Dutch police began training eagles to take down illegal drones all the way back in 2016, but after running into some training issues and a lack of demand for these trained birds, the program is being shut down.

The iMac Pro finally has a release date! The 8-core and 10-core models will arrive on December 14th, starting at a whopping $5,000 for the base model. 14- and 18-core models won't be available until 2018.

Apple and Google both offer improved Portrait Modes in their latest devices, but the two manufacturers take somewhat different approaches. Take a look at side-by-side shots to see how they square up and learn about the technologies behind them.

Moab, Utah is known for its unique desert landscapes as well as a multitude of adventurous outdoor activities. We traveled there recently with Scott Rinckenberger and the Olympus OM-D E-M10 III for an action-packed weekend of rock climbing and mountain biking – with a sunrise helicopter ride for good measure.

The Olympus 45mm F1.2 is one of the company's three F1.2 lenses, promising 'feathered' bokeh wide open, and a portrait-friendly effective focal length of 90mm. Check out our updated sample gallery to see what it can do.

It's the most wonderful time of the year: time to vote for your favorite cameras and lenses in our year-end Readers' Choice Awards. It certainly was a good year for compact cameras – cast your vote before the polls close!

Queens of the Stone Age frontman Josh Homme is under fire today after video and photos seem to show him purposely kicking photographer Chelsea Lauren in the face during last night's performance. His apologies, so far, have not gone over well.

NiSi Filters has announced a new variable ND filter that offers 1.5 stops and 5 stop of density variation and, at least according to the company, doesn't suffer from the dreaded X-effect at its most extreme settings.

National Geographic photographer Paul Nicklen and the Sea Legacy team were filming through tears, as they documented some of the final hour of a starving polar bear's life. The resulting video is haunting.

This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2017 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2017 DPReview Awards!

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes 'zoom'? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated-level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

Still yearning for an Aperture replacement? Here's a quick overview of RAW Power, a Raw image editor for iOS that pairs with the Mac application introduced in 2016. Take a look at some of its capabilities.